Your Opinions Please

[hobbes]

That would suggest that life is possible in any environment.

Yes, it does. But I think it is the probability that is different from environment to environment.

There are organisms on Earth which live in zero light, under the crushing conditions of the ocean floor, in an ambient temperature of 400F next to plumes of lava.

We humans tend to think of conditions being "livable" based on our distorted and very narrow frame of reference. Just like we think that someone who is 100 years of age is old, or that boobies are pretty.

I would be shocked to think that there is the entire rest of the Universe out there and there is nothing else comparable our world.

[hobbes]

Never said it was hobbes, never said it was.

The point is that for any system to work long term, nutrients and energy must be recycled. Thus the debris of one organism is the delight of another.

In a previous post you called this relationship "convenient". In the context you were implying that it demonstrated a master planner.

I just think that carbon and oxygen are what worked in our environment. No need to speculate a devine planner.

Question was: Why create something more complex than our Universe to explain our Universe? You just raise the ante, and defer the question. The question goes from "Where did we come from?" to, "Who created God?"

[Busyman]

I am sorry, I disagree here.

Tolerance does not require that I have sufficient conviction to enable me to resist influence to change.

Tolerance is the strength to accept another's conviction.

My personal conviction to any belief is irrelevant in this case, as tolerance does not imply that I might be tempted take on those views, merely that I accept other's rights to have them.

Just another imho...type thing

I can agree there but tolerance also breeds acceptance which leads to influence.

[Busyman]

The point is that for any system to work long term, nutrients and energy must be recycled. Thus the debris of one organism is the delight of another.

In a previous post you called this relationship "convenient". In the context you were implying that it demonstrated a master planner.

I just think that carbon and oxygen are what worked in our environment. No need to speculate a devine planner.

Question was: Why create something more complex than our Universe to explain our Universe? You just raise the ante, and defer the question. The question goes from "Where did we come from?" to, "Who created God?"

I didn't "create" anything. It's a logical belief.

I don't believe everything just is.

I don't believe The Big Bang was set forth by itself.

I understand how atheists think though.

They can't prove there is a creator so why go any further into it. I get it.

I think atheism will rise in number as the years go forward.

[hobbes]

I didn't "create" anything. It's a logical belief.

I don't believe everything just is.

I don't believe The Big Bang was set forth by itself.

I understand how atheists think though.

They can't prove there is a creator so why go any further into it. I get it.

I think atheism will rise in number as the years go forward.

Making a baffling scenario (how we came to be) more complex by creating some invisible force, who must be far more complicated than what he has designed, is in no way logical.

It is like intellectually jumping ship and not asking the question that needs to be answered. Where did the Creator come from?

So on one hand you say that the "big bang" didn't just happen, but on the other, you seem to think that this mysterious creator did? Not logical.

As to Athiesm, anyone who avers that a God cannot exist is using a much faith as one who can tell you exactly what God wants from us.

I simply don't know, I'm Agnostic. This allows me to adapt my views to new insights and evidence. I just don't "make-up" my own fantasy version and expect people to believe it because I or some book said so.

[Busyman]

Making a baffling scenario (how we came to be) more complex by creating some invisible force, who must be far more complicated than what he has designed, is in no way logical.

It is like intellectually jumping ship and not asking the question that needs to be answered. Where did the Creator come from?

So on one hand you say that the "big bang" didn't just happen, but on the other, you seem to think that this mysterious creator did? Not logical.

As to Athiesm, anyone who avers that a God cannot exist is using a much faith as one who can tell you exactly what God wants from us.

I simply don't know, I'm Agnostic. This allows me to adapt my views to new insights and evidence. I just don't "make-up" my own fantasy version and expect people to believe it because I or some book said so.

blahblahblah.

I simply say that I believe some intelligent force set it all in motion.

Who said shit about books? Oh that's right...you did.

Organized religion tries to explain what God wants from us with varying stories but again I wasn't bringing organized religion into the convo.

[hobbes]

See you absolutely refuse to take your statement to the next logical level.

What intelligent force, where did it come from?

Quick story from A Brief History of Time

An astronomer, I believe, is explaining at a townhall meeting that the Earth is round and not flat.

After politely listening to his speech, a little old lady in the back stands up and says. "Well young man, you are wrong, we all know that the Earth is flat and is standing on the back of a large tortoise".

"Well Ma'am", he replies, "what is the Tortoise standing on?"

"Clever, very clever, but we all know it's tortoises all the way down!"


The lady fails to see her logical breakdown. She is willing to go as far as a giant tortoise to explain what supports the Earth (akin to BM's intelligent force) and stops right there. She doesn't bother to consider what supports the tortoise, which is obligately the next logical question. All the way down to where, BM?

I think this is the great precipice I cannot leap. To invent an external intelligent force to explain our situation is very convenient and soothing. Particularly if we create a personality for it and promise ourselves eternal happiness. As much as I would love to believe what is being peddled (whether it is an intelligent force- otherwise undefined (as per BM) or the God of an organized religion), I honestly cannot take that jump.

Why?

Because I have created a more complex situation to explain a more simple one. Something like Ockham's razor.

[Rat Faced]

Nooo...

The world is on the back of 4 elephants... Its the elephants that are on the turtle...

[Busyman]

See you absolutely refuse to take your statement to the next logical level.

What intelligent force, where did it come from?

Quick story from A Brief History of Time

An astronomer, I believe, is explaining at a townhall meeting that the Earth is round and not flat.

After politely listening to his speech, a little old lady in the back stands up and says. "Well young man, you are wrong, we all know that the Earth is flat and is standing on the back of a large tortoise".

"Well Ma'am", he replies, "what is the Tortoise standing on?"

"Clever, very clever, but we all know it's tortoises all the way down!"


The lady fails to see her logical breakdown. She is willing to go as far as a giant tortoise to explain what supports the Earth (akin to BM's intelligent force) and stops right there. She doesn't bother to consider what supports the tortoise, which is obligately the next logical question. All the way down to where, BM?

I think this is the great precipice I cannot leap. To invent an external intelligent force to explain our situation is very convenient and soothing. Particularly if we create a personality for it and promise ourselves eternal happiness. As much as I would love to believe what is being peddled (whether it is an intelligent force- otherwise undefined (as per BM) or the God of an organized religion), I honestly cannot take that jump.

Why?

Because I have created a more complex situation to explain a more simple one. Something like Ockham's razor.

Well bud you seem to have your panties in a bunch about it in comparison to what I feel about it.

I'm taking no jump.

You are asking me to explain where God came from. I cannot obviously so you want continue bantering about dumb ass questions about it like someone's avoiding it.

"What came first, the chicken or the egg?" Who the fuck knows?

Who knows if we are descendants of aliens from another planet?

Believing an intelligence started it all is not illogical. Neither is choosing not to believe it.

Your arrogance is backing no one into a corner for my answer is simple and your question is actually bleeding to death looking for life that I cannot give it.

[Yogi]

Truth is in the mind of the beholder.

God exists. For those who believe so.

Same with allah, muhammed, etc.


Even calling yourself agnostic shows believe.


I think frogs hold more pure truth than most humans.


Yogi